Judge Allows Charlie Kirk Suspect Street Clothes, Keeps Shackles

A Utah judge made several notable rulings in the lead-up to the trial of Tyler Robinson, the man accused of killing Charlie Kirk, allowing Robinson to wear civilian clothing in court while ordering he remain shackled and restricting visual recording of his restraints; other procedural issues, including whether cameras will be allowed, were deferred to a later decision.

At a hearing in Provo, Utah, Fourth District Court Judge Tony Graf granted defense counsel’s request so Robinson can appear in street clothes, rather than a jail jumpsuit. The judge balanced concerns about courtroom presentation with courtroom security and denied the motion to have Robinson appear without restraints. “Defendant’s motion to appear in street clothes is granted,” Graf said. “Defendant’s motion to appear without restraint denied.”

The judge also moved to limit the media’s ability to show certain images connected to the defendant, explaining an interest in maintaining decorum and protecting the integrity of the proceedings. “The standing decorum order will be amended to prohibit any visual recording or photography of the defendant’s restraints or of the defendant entering or exiting the courtroom,” Graf said. Those restrictions are intended to prevent prejudicial images from shaping public opinion before a trial.

Questions about courtroom cameras and broader media access came up at the same hearing, but the judge said this was not the right moment for a final ruling. If the parties seek a camera ban or other specific limits, the court will take that up later and issue a targeted decision. For now, Judge Graf left the camera issue open, signaling that the court will weigh requests on their own merits.

Robinson has not yet appeared publicly in a Utah courtroom; previous hearings took place with him connected by video from the jail, and a suicide-prevention vest was noted during an initial virtual appearance. At the most recent hearing, the jail reportedly turned off Robinson’s camera so he was not seen, and his only verbal response to the judge was, “Yes, I can,” when asked if he could hear the proceedings. The upcoming in-person appearance is expected to be the first time the 22-year-old will stand in court before the public and media.

The next scheduled hearing where Robinson is expected to appear in person is listed as January 16, 20026, according to media reports discussed during the hearing. Parties will likely use that future date to address outstanding procedural questions and to prepare for any motions that must be resolved ahead of trial. Defense attorneys previously argued that allowing Robinson to wear regular clothes and avoid jail attire could reduce any appearance of guilt in front of potential jurors.

Local coverage and commentary at the hearing focused on the judge’s reputation for following procedure closely and avoiding any steps that could be criticized as swaying a jury. One observer summarized that approach by noting the judge is “by the book”, and likely ruled this way to prevent Robinson’s defense from accusing the jury of being influenced or swayed. The court’s narrow, process-driven decisions reflect a typical effort to keep pretrial optics and courtroom practice separate from the substantive case.

Alongside procedural rulings, the court addressed decorum and practicalities, making clear that media practices will be monitored and adjusted when necessary to prevent the release of images that could affect juror impartiality. Those restrictions will be enforced through amendments to standing orders rather than ad hoc rulings at each hearing. The aim is to strike a balance between public access to court proceedings and safeguarding a defendant’s right to a fair trial.

Defense counsel had sought multiple accommodations for Robinson in recent filings, including that he be allowed to appear unshackled and in street clothes at all appearances, a request the court partially granted and partially denied. Prosecutors and the judge emphasized safety and courtroom management when explaining the need to keep restraints in place. These early rulings set the tone for a tightly managed pretrial phase as both sides prepare for the challenges ahead in handling publicity, evidence, and jury selection.